- From: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:31:32 +0100
- To: "Webdav WG (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:19:00AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > > I just thought it was unnecessary to have to depend on yet another > > specification for something this simple. > > What do you mean by "depend"? We just reuse two standard attribute names > (xlink:href and xlink:role). That's what XLink is for -- if every > spec/document/protocol designer would take this position, it wouldn't make > any sense to try to come up with common vocabularies for this. I just mean it's annoying to have to go and read Yet Another XSpec to find out how to implement WebDAV. If the DAV spec can explain that the xlink:href attribute must contain a URI-reference, and that xlink:role is entirely optional, then it's not really a problem. ... > So again, why not just use the Xlink [1] compatible syntax that I proposed > back in October [2]: > > <D:prop xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> > <D:source-set> > <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/main.c" > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">source file</D:source> > <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/main.lib" > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">library file</D:source> > <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/makefile" > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">makefile</D:source> > </D:source-set> > </D:prop> > > What's wrong with it? It fulfills all requirements and uses W3C specs where > applicable. It does mean requiring that clients resolve XML namespaces on attribute names, which hasn't be necessary so far to implement a DAV client (in my experience anyway); possible interoperability issues there. I'll implement this source-set proposal sometime this week hopefully, given that nobody else objects to using XLink. joe
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 06:33:53 UTC